Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


WA doesn't meet federal sex offender law

October 4, 2012 @ 6:52 pm (Updated: 10:48 am - 10/5/12 )

Washington is one of 34 states that have failed to meet conditions of a 2006 federal law that requires them to join a nationwide program to track sex offenders, according to an Associated Press investigation.

The states stand to lose millions of dollars in government grants for law enforcement, but some have concluded that complying with the law would be far more expensive than getting by without the money.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, named after a boy kidnapped from a Florida mall and killed in 1981, was supposed to create a uniform system for registering and tracking sex offenders in all 50 states.

The significance of the national act was that all the states would have their information linked in a common system that is easily searchable. Washington requires sex offenders to register under state law. I'll check with the state today to determine how and why our state is out of compliance with the Adam Walsh Act.

SexOffendersThe federal legislation organizes sex offenders into three categories and requires that level 3 offenders, who are most likely to reoffend, update their whereabouts every three months with lifetime registration requirements.

Level 2 offenders must update their whereabouts every six months with 25 years of registration, and the level 1 offenders must update their whereabouts every year with 15 years of registration.

Failure to register and update information is a felony under the law.

Of the 34 states not in full compliance with the Adam Walsh Act, five have decided they won't even try. Arizona, Arkansas, California, Nebraska and Texas will instead forfeit 10 percent of the law-enforcement funding made available through the Justice Department.

There are a number of websites that list addresses of registered sex offenders, which are public record.

One search lists 748 registered sex offenders living in Seattle as of October 04, 2012.

The ratio of number of residents in Seattle to the number of sex offenders is about 825 to 1.

The King County Sheriff's Office lists names, photos and addresses of 849 registered sex offenders in Seattle.

Do those numbers seem low? By law, level 1 offenders are not listed in public database searches unless they are out of compliance with their court orders. So yes, there are far more sex offenders around us than we think.

By LINDA THOMAS, I have 13 registered sex offenders living within a one-mile radius of my home, according to Seattle records.

More from Linda Thomas

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (7)


  • Add A Comment

  • jstumbo wrote...
    you are wrong about the level system.
    October 5, 2012 5:56 am
    The levels are about the likelyhood of them reoffending, not the seriousness of the crime. Level 3 just means that they are likely to reoffend. I know someone that is a level 3, and his crime is flashing.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • commentbox wrote...
    Say It Isn't So
    October 5, 2012 8:21 am
    It's a felony, say it isn't so. Everyone run to the hills, it is a federal crime to not report. What isn't a federal crime? Manufacturing the old style light bulbs would be a federal crime. The words Federal Crime are meaningless - except to the world of hype. Of course to the News Chick the numbers seem too low, she thinks everyone accused is automatically guilty.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TheNewsChick wrote...
    Level system
    October 5, 2012 9:54 am
    Correct jstumbo: Level I. Low risk to re-offend within the community at large. Information shall be shared with other law enforcement agencies and, upon request, the Sheriff may disclose relevant, necessary and accurate information to any victim or witness to the offense and to any individual community member who lives near the residence where the offender resides, expects to reside, or is regularly found. Level I offenders MAY NOT be the subject of general public notification. Level II. Moderate risk to re-offend within the community at large. Relevant, necessary and accurate information concerning risk Level II offenders may be disclosed to public and private schools, child day care centers, family day care providers, businesses and organizations that serve primarily children, women or vulnerable adults, and neighbors and community groups near the residence where the offender resides, expects to reside, or is regularly found. Level II offenders MAY NOT be the subject of general public notification. Level III. High risk to re-offend within the community at large. Relevant, accurate and necessary information concerning offenders classified as risk Level III may be disclosed to the public at large.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Bucket Dad wrote...
    I know logic has no place in this discussion,
    October 5, 2012 12:02 pm
    but I'll ask the question anyway. If they are "High risk to re-offend within the community," why on earth are they doing at large in the community at all?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Shelly Stow wrote...
    Correction needed
    October 5, 2012 1:33 pm
    Level 3 offenders are not the ones most likely to commit a sexual crime. Studies are consistently showing that 95% of new sexual crimes are committed by those never previously charged with such an offense and therefore not on a registry. Therefore, everyone who is not a registrant is the most likely to commit a sexual offense in the future.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • TheNewsChick wrote...
    Level 3 offenders
    October 6, 2012 5:53 am
    Shelly, I understand your point and it's a good one. I'm not making a judgment on level 3 offenders having a "high risk to reoffend" that's a definition under the law.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • keitha wrote...
    I'm asking for help
    January 13, 2013 1:26 pm
    My biological sperm donor raped me throughout my childhood, stopping because he got caught, I can tell you when I wad 13, we went to Indiana court after my mom took me to the Dr, he, my father confessed, all he got was a slap on the hand, but was told he had to register, he moved to Seattle and has had a glorious life, I live in the pain he put me through, he is not registered, I wasn't his first, I know I wasn't his last, I know that I can't get anyone to help me, I am afraid truly afraid for the other kids in his area, he plays Santa every year, I bet his fetish is on his computer, he loves babies and not in a good way, please if anyone can help, make him at least register maybe it can save another child from enduring the same hell he put on me and others
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }